Great Minds Do Think Alike...
OK. Fine. I disavow the "great" part above; pardon my minor indulgence in patting myself on the back. However, the Washington Times has an editorial today that is talking about the next nominee that Pres. Bush will be announcing soon. Now, the Times doesn’t point to a specific jurist, but wouldn’t you know—we’re on the same page. We, at the Asylum, couldn’t agree more with the Times in this editorial. Mostly because we’ve cited these people time and again over the last few weeks. I went over my short-list just a couple weeks ago, and earlier this week, I reiterated it, with some help from my lovely and talented other half.
I am citing the entire editorial below because to read it at the Times site, you have to register with them. Now, registration is free, but why bother? You can read the exact same editorial below, and if you have access to their site already, a link is provided as well.
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050924-100314-3942r
Thoughts On Associate Justices
September 25, 2005
As President Bush considers his second appointment to the Supreme Court, it is worth pointing out that the appellate courts are filled with relatively young jurists whose conservative credentials are impeccable.
Reportedly under strong consideration for the 1990 Supreme Court nomination that was eventually wasted on David Souter, Judge Edith Jones (a 56-year-old Texan) has served on the 5th Circuit since 1985. Samuel Alito, a 55-year-old who worked for seven years in the Reagan administration and has much more in common with Antonin Scalia than their Italian heritage, has served on the 3rd Circuit since 1990. Michael McConnell, a 50-year-old who graduated from and taught at the University of Chicago Law School (the de facto think tank of conservative legal scholarship), has served on the 10th Circuit since 2002. A judge on 4th Circuit since 1991, 51-year-old Michael Luttig, a Texas native, was an assistant White House counsel in the Reagan administration before he clerked on the D.C. Circuit for then-Judge Scalia and for Chief Justice Warren Burger, whom he later served as special assistant.
If Mr. Bush is inclined to increase his short list in order to diversify the court in terms of sex, race or ethnicity, he should not reward Democratic stalling tactics or outright filibustering, which denied or significantly delayed appellate-court experience for several worthy Supreme Court candidates. Mr. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada in May 2001 for the D.C. Circuit, where he would have been the first Hispanic to serve on what is generally considered to be the second-most influential court in the United States. A Federalist Society member to whom the American Bar Association gave a unanimous "well-qualified" rating -- which Senate Democrats have described as "the gold standard" -- Mr. Estrada, who will celebrate his 44th birthday on Sunday, became the first Bush judicial nominee to be filibustered by the Democrats in 2003, after they lost their majority in the Senate. Before allowing her confirmation to proceed this year as part of the "Gang of 14" compromise, Democrats also filibustered 56-year-old California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an unrelenting black conservative who was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003.
Repeating verbatim the charge leveled by then-Associate Justices William Rehnquist and Byron White in their 1973 dissent in Roe v. Wade, Judge Jones filed a concurrence to her 1997 opinion in McCorvey v. Hill in which she criticized the Supreme Court's Roe decision as an exercise in "raw judicial power." To paraphrase: A twice-elected conservative Republican president and a solidly Republican-controlled Senate (whose GOP caucus has become increasingly conservative in recent years) would be rejecting their self-professed conservative philosophy if they failed to exercise whatever "raw legislative power" is necessary to guarantee the confirmation of a demonstrably conservative, preferably youthful, associate justice.
So, once more, let’s take a look at their list and ours:
Judge Edith Jones, or the 5th Circuit Court
Samuel Alito, of the 3rd Circuit Court
Michael McConnell, of the 10th Circuit Court
J. Michael Luttig, of the 4th Circuit Court
They also include Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, of which we have included on our list. The only jurist we do not find on their list that is a dark horse on ours is Emilio Garza, of the 3rd Circuit Court, and the newly bandied-about Karen Williams, of the 4th Circuit Court. And we can’t forget Priscilla Owen, of the 5th Circuit Court. So, there are the ten nominees on our list.
Each and every one of these jurists would be a fine addition to the court, and would maintain the balance that was supposed to have occurred when O’Connor was first laced on the court by Pres. Reagan. With Scalia making it in 1986—the same year that then-Associate Justice Rehnquist was elevated to the Chief’s chair, and Thomas in 1991, the court should have had four solid Constitutionally-minded people. What happened to O’Connor has always been the question.
Many people I know blame it on her sex—that a "skirt" shouldn’t be on the high court. Their emotional standing seems to infect their sound judgment. They lack the ability to reason effectively for what they perceive to be right and proper. Well, to that, I offer up Justice Ginsburg, of whom I strongly disagree with 99.9% of the time. However, this is a woman who truly believes it is right and proper to inject foreign law into her decisions, and openly advocates for more use of such citations.
Sex has zero to do with who should or should not be on the court. Four out of the ten nominees above are female, and all of them are well-versed in the Constitution. They have done an outstanding job of interpreting it, and various state constitutions throughout their careers. The mistake made with O’Connor was that she was more moderate—always more moderate—than she let on. Reagan succumbed to the idea of being the first president to nominate a woman to the high court. His mistake was in assuming O’Connor would be conservative enough.
He was wrong. I can find very few faults with Pres. Reagan. O’Connor was one of them, and in my opinion, she was, perhaps, his biggest mistake.
Marcie and I don’t screw around on subjects like this. The courts—the law—is near and dear to both of us. Our continuing plans for the future involve us both becoming attorneys. So, when it comes to this subject, we are passionate about it, and we dislike having to deal with morons that base their opinions on prejudice rather than sound jurisprudence. That goes for the couple of critics that dislike our choice of Garza and Brown because they’re Hispanic and black, respectively.
Our opinion on this matter is sound, reasoned judgment. We have reviewed cases heard by these people, looked at past legal writings, have read the transcripts of speeches and addresses, and read the transcripts of the committee hearings they have been in. I challenge our critics to match the amount of research we have done, and come to a determination contradictory to us. Our knowledge and confidence doesn’t come from "jumping on the bandwagon." Both of us did our fair share of research regarding these ten people because we wanted to be sure about them, and we wanted to be right. We were right on Roberts, in our constant defense of the man. I know the Times did their homework regarding these people, too. The only we can do now is sit back, hope, and pray that the president has done his, and doesn’t give us another Souter.
Publius II
OK. Fine. I disavow the "great" part above; pardon my minor indulgence in patting myself on the back. However, the Washington Times has an editorial today that is talking about the next nominee that Pres. Bush will be announcing soon. Now, the Times doesn’t point to a specific jurist, but wouldn’t you know—we’re on the same page. We, at the Asylum, couldn’t agree more with the Times in this editorial. Mostly because we’ve cited these people time and again over the last few weeks. I went over my short-list just a couple weeks ago, and earlier this week, I reiterated it, with some help from my lovely and talented other half.
I am citing the entire editorial below because to read it at the Times site, you have to register with them. Now, registration is free, but why bother? You can read the exact same editorial below, and if you have access to their site already, a link is provided as well.
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050924-100314-3942r
Thoughts On Associate Justices
September 25, 2005
As President Bush considers his second appointment to the Supreme Court, it is worth pointing out that the appellate courts are filled with relatively young jurists whose conservative credentials are impeccable.
Reportedly under strong consideration for the 1990 Supreme Court nomination that was eventually wasted on David Souter, Judge Edith Jones (a 56-year-old Texan) has served on the 5th Circuit since 1985. Samuel Alito, a 55-year-old who worked for seven years in the Reagan administration and has much more in common with Antonin Scalia than their Italian heritage, has served on the 3rd Circuit since 1990. Michael McConnell, a 50-year-old who graduated from and taught at the University of Chicago Law School (the de facto think tank of conservative legal scholarship), has served on the 10th Circuit since 2002. A judge on 4th Circuit since 1991, 51-year-old Michael Luttig, a Texas native, was an assistant White House counsel in the Reagan administration before he clerked on the D.C. Circuit for then-Judge Scalia and for Chief Justice Warren Burger, whom he later served as special assistant.
If Mr. Bush is inclined to increase his short list in order to diversify the court in terms of sex, race or ethnicity, he should not reward Democratic stalling tactics or outright filibustering, which denied or significantly delayed appellate-court experience for several worthy Supreme Court candidates. Mr. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada in May 2001 for the D.C. Circuit, where he would have been the first Hispanic to serve on what is generally considered to be the second-most influential court in the United States. A Federalist Society member to whom the American Bar Association gave a unanimous "well-qualified" rating -- which Senate Democrats have described as "the gold standard" -- Mr. Estrada, who will celebrate his 44th birthday on Sunday, became the first Bush judicial nominee to be filibustered by the Democrats in 2003, after they lost their majority in the Senate. Before allowing her confirmation to proceed this year as part of the "Gang of 14" compromise, Democrats also filibustered 56-year-old California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an unrelenting black conservative who was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003.
Repeating verbatim the charge leveled by then-Associate Justices William Rehnquist and Byron White in their 1973 dissent in Roe v. Wade, Judge Jones filed a concurrence to her 1997 opinion in McCorvey v. Hill in which she criticized the Supreme Court's Roe decision as an exercise in "raw judicial power." To paraphrase: A twice-elected conservative Republican president and a solidly Republican-controlled Senate (whose GOP caucus has become increasingly conservative in recent years) would be rejecting their self-professed conservative philosophy if they failed to exercise whatever "raw legislative power" is necessary to guarantee the confirmation of a demonstrably conservative, preferably youthful, associate justice.
So, once more, let’s take a look at their list and ours:
Judge Edith Jones, or the 5th Circuit Court
Samuel Alito, of the 3rd Circuit Court
Michael McConnell, of the 10th Circuit Court
J. Michael Luttig, of the 4th Circuit Court
They also include Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, of which we have included on our list. The only jurist we do not find on their list that is a dark horse on ours is Emilio Garza, of the 3rd Circuit Court, and the newly bandied-about Karen Williams, of the 4th Circuit Court. And we can’t forget Priscilla Owen, of the 5th Circuit Court. So, there are the ten nominees on our list.
Each and every one of these jurists would be a fine addition to the court, and would maintain the balance that was supposed to have occurred when O’Connor was first laced on the court by Pres. Reagan. With Scalia making it in 1986—the same year that then-Associate Justice Rehnquist was elevated to the Chief’s chair, and Thomas in 1991, the court should have had four solid Constitutionally-minded people. What happened to O’Connor has always been the question.
Many people I know blame it on her sex—that a "skirt" shouldn’t be on the high court. Their emotional standing seems to infect their sound judgment. They lack the ability to reason effectively for what they perceive to be right and proper. Well, to that, I offer up Justice Ginsburg, of whom I strongly disagree with 99.9% of the time. However, this is a woman who truly believes it is right and proper to inject foreign law into her decisions, and openly advocates for more use of such citations.
Sex has zero to do with who should or should not be on the court. Four out of the ten nominees above are female, and all of them are well-versed in the Constitution. They have done an outstanding job of interpreting it, and various state constitutions throughout their careers. The mistake made with O’Connor was that she was more moderate—always more moderate—than she let on. Reagan succumbed to the idea of being the first president to nominate a woman to the high court. His mistake was in assuming O’Connor would be conservative enough.
He was wrong. I can find very few faults with Pres. Reagan. O’Connor was one of them, and in my opinion, she was, perhaps, his biggest mistake.
Marcie and I don’t screw around on subjects like this. The courts—the law—is near and dear to both of us. Our continuing plans for the future involve us both becoming attorneys. So, when it comes to this subject, we are passionate about it, and we dislike having to deal with morons that base their opinions on prejudice rather than sound jurisprudence. That goes for the couple of critics that dislike our choice of Garza and Brown because they’re Hispanic and black, respectively.
Our opinion on this matter is sound, reasoned judgment. We have reviewed cases heard by these people, looked at past legal writings, have read the transcripts of speeches and addresses, and read the transcripts of the committee hearings they have been in. I challenge our critics to match the amount of research we have done, and come to a determination contradictory to us. Our knowledge and confidence doesn’t come from "jumping on the bandwagon." Both of us did our fair share of research regarding these ten people because we wanted to be sure about them, and we wanted to be right. We were right on Roberts, in our constant defense of the man. I know the Times did their homework regarding these people, too. The only we can do now is sit back, hope, and pray that the president has done his, and doesn’t give us another Souter.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home